I don’t mean to be argumentative but our society is already well armed. Laws that limit the law-abinding from owning or carrying guns is plain silly. Criminals pay no attention to the law…I can’t think of a single example of where a little old lady did a drive by or stuck up a convience store so keeping guns out of their hands (or the hands of law-abiding) does what exactly?If you truly think that having a well-armed society will make it safer, I suggest you take a visit to my old neighborhood in southwest Detroit.
Most everyone, from little old ladies to thugs, is armed.
For a while, the post office stopped delivering mail there because it was too unsafe.
But, hey, if that’s the kind of world you want to live in, have at it. There’s plenty of abandoned properties to move into!
Armed Citizens have kept us from becoming more like China and Cuba.Do you think that’s what makes the US different from Cuba or China? That everyone can get a gun?
You can say that again.Armed Citizens have kept us from becoming more like China and Cuba.
Royal Archer, The answers are: yes, yes and yes. Science is capable of producing non lethal weapons that are effective deterrents both to crime and to war. Metal and fragmentary metal projectile launchers are primitive at best and cause more psychological damage than they do physical. Non lethal weapons remove entirely the psychological as well as the physical damage to societies and produce deterrents which promote social well being and safety. Humanity needs to accept the findings of all sciences which promote the health and welfare of that humanity. If we do not accept the end of psychological and physical destruction, then man is doomed to remain in the stone age. We are now at a crossroad in the development of man as social being rather than ape-man armed with clubs and spears.Are you advocating that these instruments be available to all citizens at a price as reasonable as guns?
Also are these non lethal instruments as effective as fire arms for incapacitating multiple targets?
Are these non lethal instruments effective when confronting an enemy with traditional lethal weapons?
How? What actions have been prevented by armed citizens?Armed Citizens have kept us from becoming more like China and Cuba.
With out the psychological trauma, where is the deterent?Royal Archer, The answers are: yes, yes and yes. Science is capable of producing non lethal weapons that are effective deterrents both to crime and to war. Metal and fragmentary metal projectile launchers are primitive at best and cause more psychological damage than they do physical. Non lethal weapons remove entirely the psychological as well as the physical damage to societies and produce deterrents which promote social well being and safety. Humanity needs to accept the findings of all sciences which promote the health and welfare of that humanity. If we do not accept the end of psychological and physical destruction, then man is doomed to remain in the stone age. We are now at a crossroad in the development of man as social being rather than ape-man armed with clubs and spears.
The round up and extermination of the jewish citizens. The forced labor camps. The summary executions of Christians and intelectuals. etc. etc. etc.How? What actions have been prevented by armed citizens?
What are you talking about? Maybe I should rephrase my question:The round up and extermination of the jewish citizens. The forced labor camps. The summary executions of Christians and intelectuals. etc. etc. etc.
Royal Archer, I am not referring to psychological trauma of the criminals, I refer to the psychological truama of law enforcement officers and military. Severe trauma occurs in anyone who uses lethal force to kill another human being, that is why many police are required to take time off and evaluation before they return to duty and military suffer the effects of trauma usually until the end of their lives. There has to be a better way to deter crime other than lethal force and there in fact is new scientific developments which anaesthetise combatants for containment who then go to rehabilitation.With out the psychological trauma, where is the deterent?
If we are in a larger conflict, what do we do with all of the temporarily incapacitated enemy soldiers?
Are these legal under the geneva convention?
Consider pre-Hitler Germany.What are you talking about? Maybe I should rephrase my question:
What potential action in the United States was deterred by an armed citizenry?
Consider pre-Hitler Germany.
The Germans considered themselves to be the most democratic and best educated society in the world.
And look at the depth they fell to.
Hitler confiscated all the guns and after that there was not holding him back.
You’re right, he was voted in. And after that he disarmed the entire population so he didn’t need to be re-elected.
- That’s not the way any of it happened. The majority of Germans supported Hitler; they either liked what was going on or they didn’t care about it. An armed militia would not have held Hitler back because not enough people opposed him within Germany to fight back anyway.
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
- Can you show any proposed action inside the United States that an armed citizenry deterred? That’s the original question, in response to the claim that an armed citizenry has prevented the US from turning into Cuba or China.
I did list several events that were detered by an amed citizenry.What are you talking about? Maybe I should rephrase my question:
What potential action in the United States was deterred by an armed citizenry?
If the worse case scenario for an assailant is that they might get “rehabilitated” there is much less of a detterent than the thought they may face an agonizing death.Royal Archer, I am not referring to psychological trauma of the criminals, I refer to the psychological truama of law enforcement officers and military. Severe trauma occurs in anyone who uses lethal force to kill another human being, that is why many police are required to take time off and evaluation before they return to duty and military suffer the effects of trauma usually until the end of their lives. There has to be a better way to deter crime other than lethal force and there in fact is new scientific developments which anaesthetise combatants for containment who then go to rehabilitation.
Tthere was public support when they had guns but after the Nazis took away the guns they changed their policies and public support crumbled but no one could do anything about it.
- That’s not the way any of it happened. The majority of Germans supported Hitler; they either liked what was going on or they didn’t care about it. An armed militia would not have held Hitler back because not enough people opposed him within Germany to fight back anyway…
Many of these actions were squelched before they were proposed by anyone except the fringe. Serious politicians know that if they try to take away rights to fast they will have an armed revolt on their hands.
- Can you show any proposed action inside the United States that an armed citizenry deterred? That’s the original question, in response to the claim that an armed citizenry has prevented the US from turning into Cuba or China.
Seriously? Who proposed the round up and extermination of Jewish citizenry? When? When were they voted out of office, and who caused them to back down? When were Christians and intellectuals supposed to be executed summarily? Who proposed it and what forced them to back down?I did list several events that were detered by an amed citizenry.
Except that it was irrelevant. There was no popular desire in Germany to overthrow Hitler at any point until late in the war, and even then, its debatable. The Nazis were popular in Germany; even a strong, well-armed militia would have been on their side.You’re right, he was voted in. And after that he disarmed the entire population so he didn’t need to be re-elected.
One quote from Yammamoto that proves…what? He knew that an invasion of the US by the Japanese could never succeed for ten million different reasons, most notably that the American populace would outnumber the Japanese tremendously. And in that situation, the government would probably be distributing arms to the people.Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
Like what? You’ve never provided evidence of anyone even suggesting attempting this nebulous “anything”. Who would have attempted anything? Why would they have done it? When would they have done it?Having a well armed populace is enough to deter our own government from even attempting anything.
It proves he knew that it would an act of futility b/c so many citizens were armed and would use them in the face of the invasion. There were so many firearms in this country that the government wouldn’t even have to arm the people.One quote from Yammamoto that proves…what? He knew that an invasion of the US by the Japanese could never succeed for ten million different reasons, most notably that the American populace would outnumber the Japanese tremendously. And in that situation, the government would probably be distributing arms to the people.
You do not seem to grasp the idea that by having a well armed populace that no one is dumb enough to even try anything b/c they will not succeed.Like what? You’ve never provided evidence of anyone even suggesting attempting this nebulous “anything”. Who would have attempted anything? Why would they have done it? When would they have done it?
It was incredibly obvious that this was hyperbole, but here are the major reasons:It proves he knew that it would an act of futility b/c so many citizens were armed and would use them in the face of the invasion. There were so many firearms in this country that the government wouldn’t even have to arm the people.
I can’t wait to read your ten million reasons it wouldn’t succeed. Please make sure to number each one.
Nobody is dumb enough to even put their idea to paper or even mention it? No one, in the entire recorded history of the United States, was even kind enough to specify what this nebulous, but bad “anything” is?You do not seem to grasp the idea that by having a well armed populace that no one is dumb enough to even try anything b/c they will not succeed.
I completely disagree. Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force or fear of force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.A society without guns would be infinitely safer especially when enforced in every aspect of interaction. Guns were invented by men who desired a means to kill or maim. Science is capable of and even now is currently developing other means of restraint in tasar technology or anesthetics or adhesives which contain violent persons. Bullets are projectiles that penetrate and destroy human flesh and is an archaic method to stop crime and criminals. Containment is far more beneficial to society and so is restraints that do not harm the human person which alleviate the guilt complex which accompanies the act of killing. We all would benefit from new science which would stop violence before it occurs without harm to either the victim or the perpetrator.